The Socialist 6 Sept 2002

Fight for socialism

Capitalism = Poverty, War, Environmental Destruction: THE WORLD Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, painted a picture of the misery that capitalism has created. More than one billion people without access to clean drinking water and 2.5 billion with no sanitation; 12 million dying every year from easily eradicated waterborne diseases.

THE VERY lively protest in London by thousands of firefighters on 2 September revealed their determination to win their pay claim. But it also reflects a wider militancy amongst public sector workers, who are no longer prepared to tolerate low pay, cuts and privatisation.

War against Iraq: Unions Must Organise Opposition

THE TUC is meeting at a time when opposition to war against Iraq is growing. A Daily Mirror poll this week showed 71% of the population opposed to joining a war without United Nations approval.

Summit For Nothing: THE CAPITALIST governments and big business interests which met in Johannesburg achieved nothing. In many ways this was even a retreat from summits such as Rio in 1992 or Kyoto in 1997.

Brimming With Optimism For Socialism

Socialism in the 21st century

by Hannah Sell

WHETHER YOU are a first time reader of The Socialist or a longstanding member of our party, this book is for you, writes Paula Mitchell. 

Will Bush launch a war on Iraq? A THOUSAND people polled by The History Channel named the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon a year ago on 11 September as "the most memorable event in world history". This is clearly an exaggeration. By Peter Taaffe, General Secretary, Socialist Party

SOCIALISM 2002, now only eight weeks away, is a weekend of discussion and debate hosted by the Socialist Party, about how best we can fight back against capitalism. Crucially we will also be discussing the need for a socialist alternative to the nightmare of capitalism and what form such an alternative should take. By Hannah Sell

TUC Conference: Critical Time For Trade Unionists

THIS YEAR'S TUC conference meets in Blackpool at a decisive juncture for Britain's trade union movement. By Bill Mullins, Socialist Party industrial organiser

The Socialist 6 September 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe

Capitalism = Poverty + War + Environmental Destruction

Fight for socialism

THE WORLD Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, painted a picture of the misery that capitalism has created. 

More than one billion people without access to clean drinking water and 2.5 billion with no sanitation; 12 million dying every year from easily eradicated waterborne diseases.

While governments talk about targets to halve this misery in 15 years, someone dies horribly every 15 seconds.

The summit, the biggest ever held with 65,000 delegates from 174 countries, will have done nothing to improve the horrendous conditions the world's poor suffer or lessen environmental destruction (see page 3).

As the head of the UN development programme said: "You have to say these things. You have to listen to everyone saying the same bloody things. The international negotiations and government declarations will be forgotten within minutes of the ink being signed on the paper".

Capitalism is a system based on maximising the profits of big business at the expense of the working class and poor worldwide. The five largest companies in the world have combined sales larger than the total income of the poorest 46 nations. Multinational corporations have the real power in society, which they exercise through their political representatives like Bush and Blair.

BP, for example, has just been given the go-ahead to build a pipeline across Turkey and will be exempt from any environmental, social or human rights laws that might threaten its profits.

Meanwhile Bush is preparing to wage war against Iraq for the profits and prestige of the US capitalist class. In addition to the enormous cost in human lives lost, the financial cost of such a war is estimated to be $50-$100 billion. Yet it would take just $40 billion to provide decent education, health care, food, safe water and sanitation for every poor person on the planet.

A real World Summit would be about taking the world's resources and using them for need not profit. But only socialism could achieve that, by bringing into public ownership the major multinational companies and democratically planning production in an environmentally sustainable way.

Thousands of South African workers and poor demonstrated at the summit in Johannesburg (see page 3 for eyewitness reports). Hundreds of thousands of trade unionists and anti-capitalist protesters have taken part in protests and strike action in Europe and elsewhere.

The 28 September demonstration in London against war with Iraq could be one of the biggest for many years. In the course of these struggles many more workers and young people will come to see the need to get organised and fight for a socialist alternative to the horrors of capitalism.

The Socialist 6 September 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe

Support The Firefighters

THE VERY lively protest in London by thousands of firefighters on 2 September revealed their determination to win their pay claim. But it also reflects a wider militancy amongst public sector workers, who are no longer prepared to tolerate low pay, cuts and privatisation.

Jim Horton

Firefighters could be striking for the first time in 25 years following the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) rejection of management's paltry 4% pay offer.

Up to 30 brigades, including those in the South-West, Derbyshire, Norfolk, Leicestershire, Northants, Suffolk and Bedfordshire have began unofficial action, answering emergency calls only.

To the resounding approval of the mass of firefighters and their families protesting outside the pay talks, FBU general secretary Andy Gilchrist said: "Be very clear - the executive council are recommending national strike action."

Rousing cheers greeted CWU general secretary Billy Hayes' pledge that no postal worker would cross an FBU picket line. Hayes also demanded to know why the government could afford to go to war but not pay workers decent wages.

Strike action is no rash decision. Decades of under funding, chronic understaffing and low pay have compelled dedicated workers to take action.

A fully qualified firefighter earns £21,500 and many have to work unpaid overtime to cover under-crewing.

The current pay formula was negotiated in 1977, after the last national firefighters' strike. Since then there has been a massive increase in the number and complexity of calls and an erosion of wage rates. Many firefighters now have to claim state benefits to survive.

Management say they accept the current pay formula needs reviewing but for months refused to make any offer. Now they insist the derisory pay offer is linked to 'modernisation' and operational changes.

Firefighters and Emergency Fire Control Staff are determined to see the battle for decent pay through to the end. Opinion polls show they have the overwhelming support of the public.

Management claim lives will be put at risk if firefighters take industrial action. But responsibility for any strike rests with an intransigent management trying to get a vital service on the cheap.

The FBU recall national conference on 12 September will be recommending a strike ballot. Given the huge public support the full £30,000 claim can be won, inspiring other public-sector workers.

The FBU should approach other public sector unions, such as the CWU, UNISON, and the rail and teaching unions, about a one-day public sector strike against low pay.

• For the full Fire Brigades Union pay claim
• For a one-day public sector strike against low pay

The Socialist 6 September 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe

War against Iraq

Unions Must Organise Opposition

THE TUC is meeting at a time when opposition to war against Iraq is growing. A Daily Mirror poll this week showed 71% of the population opposed to joining a war without United Nations approval. A survey of Labour Party constituency chairs showed only five of the 100 interviewed by the Times supported military intervention. In terms of Blair's sanitised New Labour, that is as near a state of open revolt as you can get.

In the US itself, CNN and Newsweek polls show a 20% drop in support for a war on Iraq. There is even greater opposition to the idea of the US going it alone.

The trade union leaders are also having to reflect, in words at least, the unease and hostility that exists towards military action against Iraq. Bill Morris, leader of the Transport and General Workers' Union, went on TV last weekend to warn Blair against getting involved in the US's possible actions and called for more evidence.

The TUC will debate a motion from the TSSA railworkers' union at its congress opposing an attack on Iraq. It says: "Congress urges the UK government to withhold support for such an attack, which it considers is contrary to international law and would inevitably destabilise the Middle East."

But the union leaders also need to give a way forward in concrete terms. At present, most opposition to the war comes in confused terms such as calling for UN inspectors to go back into Iraq first, for a UN coalition for action to be built first or, if action is imminent, for Parliament to be recalled.

In all previous conflicts, even where Parliament has been recalled, it has not made a single bit of difference. The only way that any wars have been halted in recent decades has not been through appeals to governments but only when organised mass protests have shaken governments.

Trade union leaders, if they are to show serious opposition to any war, must give a clear lead; preparing to organise mass protests and action rather than plaintive appeals.

The Stop the War Coalition are calling for a one-hour stoppage and show of civil disobedience before any action takes place and on the day action begins against Iraq. The Coalition has the support of many of the new generation of Left leaders of the unions in RMT, Aslef, PCS, Amicus, NUJ and FBU. At the TUC these leaders should prepare the way for a 'pre-emptive' stoppage and discuss naming a day in the autumn for such action to take place.

To ensure such a stoppage is successful it is vital that the trade union leaders and the Coalition launch a campaign of mass propaganda, stoppages and meetings in workplaces, colleges, schools and communities to convince workers and young people of the need for action against the war.

If the union leaders were to bring out the class issues in the war and link such a stoppage with the growing class anger against the Blair government on issues such as low pay and privatisation, then there would be widespread popular support. Indeed, a longer stoppage, possibly even a one-day general strike, could develop, if it is prepared properly.

A co-ordinated strategy could force even right-wing union leaders like Bill Morris and John Edmonds, such is the current mood, to go further in opposing the war.

In turn a decisive lead from the unions could bring out - as in Rome earlier this year - millions to protest at the Stop the War Coalition national demonstration in London on 28 September. Being prepared to link that demonstration with stoppages and strike action is the clearest lead that could be given.

Such a clear lead could effectively halt the plans of George Bush's regime to embark on a conflict that threatens catastrophe and chaos for a large part of the world.

AS PREVIOUSLY reported in The Socialist, New Labour are preparing for 30,000 troops to be used as a strike breaking force if, as looks likely, firefighters take strike action over their claim for a 30% wage rise (see page 12).

However, senior army officers have warned that if the plan, code-named Operation Fresco, goes ahead it will mean that Britain would not be able to support a US invasion of Iraq in the autumn.

One commanding officer told The Telegraph: "The vast majority of the soldiers committed to Operation Fresco will come from the army - that's almost a third of its entire strength. It will in effect mean that the army is grounded while the strike is on."

The Socialist 6 September 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe

Mass Protest Gave Workers A Voice

"THE INITIAL reaction of the African National Congress (ANC) government was to deny permission to demonstrate to the united social movement (USM) which represented the anti-privatisation forum (which the DSM is affiliated to), the landless people's movement as well as Via Campesina which is an international movement - 'the peasant way' - and a host of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).

The government was clearly concerned that they would be embarrassed by a massive turnout and so they decided on two tactics. On the one hand, to organise their own march together with the COSATU (trade union confederation) leadership on the same day, starting from the same township, Alexandra. And on the other hand, initially, to deny permission to the USM demo.

However, a week beforehand - when a number of anti-globalisation activists marched from Witts University to the main police station in Johannesburg, now known as Thabo Mbeki square - stun grenades were hurled at the demonstrators which included people like Naomi Klein (the US writer of No Logo ).

It caused the government a great deal of embarrassment and led to divisions inside the ANC because the authorities were seen to be behaving just like the old apartheid regime. As a result in the middle of the week the government relented the ban on the demo.

There was about 10,000-12,000 people on the march, which given the government's harassment and attempts to sabotage it, represents a huge success.

Part of the government strategy to provide such a long route (between 12-15 kilometres) in the hope that sheer exhaustion, hunger and thirst would result in people dropping off. There were unprecedented levels of security with both the army and police deployed all along the route with stun grenades, machine guns trained on the demonstrators, armoured vehicles and riot police.

There was also clear harassment from the state with the use of police helicopters that constantly circled the march. At the rally outside the Sandton convention centre they deliberately hovered above the stage drowning out the speeches.

The government decided to send from the office of the President, Essop Pahad (he was one of the three central committee members of the South African Communist Party recently booted off by the SACP congress) to receive the memorandum from the demonstration. But through the intervention of our comrades, including the leader of the Socialist Students movement at Witts University, Pahad was not allowed to speak (The TV showed our comrade telling him to get off the stage! - The Sunday Paper front page showed a picture of Pahad with the headline "VOETSEK" which means "get away" - usually spoken when shooing away a dog!)

In contrast, the initial radio reports of the government organised demo, at which Mbeki spoke, described the turnout of 3,000 people as 'a flop'. Opportunistically and hypocritically, Mbeki (whose ANC government is promoting capitalist policies of privatisations and cutbacks which are increasing poverty) denounced the 'global apartheid' between rich and poor."

What struck me was all along the march was the intense hatred which exists for Mbeki in particular.

*PRIOR TO the march there was a pro-Palestinian rights rally at Johannesburg city hall the evening before, attended by 1,000 people. Speakers from the Socialist Students movement from the University of Durban, Westville, in KwaZulu Natal intervened and captivated the audience, with people giving them a standing ovation as they hoisted their banner.

Summit For Nothing

THE CAPITALIST governments and big business interests which met in Johannesburg achieved nothing. In many ways this was even a retreat from summits such as Rio in 1992 or Kyoto in 1997.

On energy they failed to set any targets for increased use of renewable energy and less use of greenhouse gas-producing fuels, after pressure from oil companies and the US government.

On poverty, they agreed to set up a solidarity fund to wipe out poverty - but contributions are voluntary. Meanwhile inequality both within and between nations is growing rapidly.

On health, they agreed that World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules on patents should not stop sick people in poor countries getting treatment - particularly relevant for countries hit by Aids.

But another section on trade says that WTO rules must over-ride global environmental treaties! So there is still potential for disagreement and vetoes by big pharmaceutical companies.

The only action which the summit approved were schemes for "partnerships" where big business can make yet more profit out of the misery that capitalism has brought. The Socialist Party will carry on fighting for socialist answers.

The Socialist 6 September 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe

Brimming With Optimism For Socialism

Paula Mitchell reviews

Socialism in the 21st century

by Hannah Sell

WHETHER YOU are a first time reader of The Socialist or a longstanding member of our party, this book is for you.

Perhaps you have just bought this paper for the first time and are wondering what socialists have to say for themselves. Maybe you are a new party member and want to learn more about our ideas.

Or perhaps, as a longstanding member, you are looking for a tool to help you explain our ideas simply, to recruit someone, or help a new member get to grips with what our party is all about.

As Hannah begins the book by saying: "If you were to judge purely by the media, parliament, or the education system, you would decide that socialism is a spent force."

Yet masses of young people on anti-capitalist and anti-war demonstrations are against capitalism, and many are seriously looking for an alternative. Some consciously think of themselves as socialist and may already be reading Marx and Trotsky.

Many more want to know about socialism, others are looking at a whole range of ideas. Some think maybe they can mix and match between the different options.

In the workplaces, amongst all those hundreds of thousands of workers now taking or planning strike action - many for the first time - large numbers are also looking for explanations and alternatives to New Labour and their right-wing trade union leaders.

They see the Socialist Party and others on the Left and want to know who we are, and what socialism is about. But they want an explanation - not just agitation - about how and why capitalism is a rotten system; what socialism is and how it might work; how it can be achieved. And they want all this in an accessible form. Hannah's book fits the bill.

Fight for socialism

This book offers a devastating attack on conditions of life in Britain and the world today and is full of useful facts which demonstrate the barbarity of the capitalist system.

But this book is much more than that. Page by page, in everyday language, an argument is constructed which leaves you with one irresistible conclusion - we need to organise to fight for socialism.

The book is not long, deliberately so, and there are lots of issues that it cannot cover. But a wealth of important issues are here: globalisation and the current world economic crisis; the post-war boom, Keynesianism and neo-liberal policies; the transformation of New Labour into a big business party, the need for a new workers' party and how it could come about; racism, sexism and environmental issues.

The chapter on 'Could things be different?' grabs the imagination with what would be possible if the world's resources and the potential inherent in technology were used in a planned and rational way.

"For most of human history it has not been possible to satisfy even the most basic human needs. Now... the potential exists to eliminate want forever. The barrier to achieving this is the capitalist system itself."

Change the world

BUT HANNAH doesn't just assert that capitalism is the problem. The chapter 'Marx was right' is an accessible explanation of why we say this. It explains how the working class is exploited and that the interests of the working and ruling classes are diametrically opposed.

It also goes into the basic contradictions in capitalism, in particular that the working class cannot buy back all they produce, leading to periodic crises of over-capacity and over-production.

There is an excellent section on the working class, explaining that, despite changes in its composition, the working class is stronger now than in Marx's day. The issue now is about consciousness and confidence, affected by the collapse of Stalinism.

'How could socialism work?' deals with socialist democracy, the immediate gains that would be possible and, longer term, the kind of society that could be built on the basis of a socialist plan.

The chapter deals very well with the fear many people have about use of force in changing society, and also the worries about a bureaucracy.

The chapter 'Is there an easier way to change the world?', in particular, is a real tour de force. Hannah takes up the main ideas prevalent in the anti-capitalist movement.

Sensitively she explains how simply attempting to create islands of socialism or alternative lifestyles will not change the world: "It is clearly unviable to imagine that their [the world's richest companies'] resistance to fundamental change could be overcome merely by the good example of local co-operatives and communes. There is no alternative but to disempower the capitalist class by removing its control of the economy and state."

Equally, attempting to reform capitalism will not work. "No matter how hard people fight, or how many progressive laws are passed, capitalism will never be a 'fair' system.... At every opportunity, the bosses will attack the living conditions of working people to increase their own profits.... the idea that they can be controlled and made to act in a 'fair' way is more utopian than ever."

The chapter is superb on the central role of the working class in changing society, on why people need to be organised and the role of a revolutionary party.

It gives a succinct, moving account of the Russian revolution, Stalinism and Trotskyism, essential for many people today who are sceptical about socialism because of misinformation about what happened in Russia.

As I neared the end of this book, the list in my head of all the people I should buy it for was getting longer.

You can't help but feel that no-one could possibly finish this book without deciding that they have become a socialist while reading it.

Of course, as Hannah explains, it will take a bit more than reading one small book to convert most people to socialist ideas and action: "The mass of people accept new ideas, not because they read about them in books and newspapers, but on the basis of their own experience."

But this book will be a great help in that process.

Above all it is brimming with optimism. "Socialist ideas have been developed over centuries in the course of humanity's fight for a better life. Today they remain the only viable alternative in an increasingly unstable and brutal capitalist world. It is this reality that ensures that socialism is not a spent force but the wave of the future."

The Socialist 6 September 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe

A Year After 11 September

Will Bush launch a war on Iraq?

A THOUSAND people polled by The History Channel named the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon a year ago on 11 September as "the most memorable event in world history". This is clearly an exaggeration.

Peter Taaffe, General Secretary, Socialist Party

Many events in the last century - two world wars, a series of revolutions and counter-revolutions, above all the October 1917 Russian Revolution, the single greatest event in human history - were much more decisive turning points for humankind than this event.

Nevertheless, this poll underlines just how 11 September has been etched into world-wide popular consciousness. Afterwards, the world appeared to have "changed utterly", as the poet Yeats put it. In reality, this event mainly underlined starkly the trends at work before then, particularly US imperialism's crushing dominance as the only real superpower, both militarily and economically.

The terrorist attacks on 11 September allowed the US ruling class to ratchet up its military spending - by 2003 it will spend as much on defence as the next 15-20 national military budgets combined. It has overwhelming nuclear superiority, the world's dominant air force, and the only "truly blue-water navy" [Foreign Affairs, July/August 2002].

Moreover, the amount it spends on military research and development - three times more than the next six powers combined - means it will continue to further outstrip any rivals.

It has an unparalleled lead in advanced communications and information technology, and "it has demonstrated unrivalled ability to co-ordinate and process information about the battlefield and destroy targets from afar with extraordinary precision".

This appears to be vindicated by the outcome of the Afghan War, the third 'hi-tech' military victory of US imperialism and its ''allies" in ten years. The attack by al-Qa'ida inspired forces on 11 September gave the Bush regime the excuse to initiate a brutal military offensive phase of US imperialism, combined with a semi-dictatorial attack on democratic and civil rights in the US, under the guise of "the war on terrorism". This led almost immediately to the war in Afghanistan.

Ironically two 'fundamentalist' forces confronted each other, the Taliban/al-Qa'ida regime on one side and the Bush presidency - based on an axis of the powerful lobby of right-wing fundamentalist Christians together with fundamentalist Jewish pro-Israelis in the US - on the other.

Flawed system

MOREOVER, BUSH'S government and the electoral system that produced it are based on an electoral minority - the majority now don't vote in elections - which bears some parallels with ancient Rome.

Then, only the ''privileged" voted, while the most productive part of society, the slaves, were repressed and militarily kept in check. Today, significant sections of the working class and particularly the poor have given up on voting. Their voice, especially in elections, is not heard.

Even before the "election" - in reality, an unconstitutional coup - of George Bush junior, this political system was deeply flawed, with big dangers of unforeseen and potentially disastrous consequences for the US ruling class. This is now a reality in Bush's measures following 11 September.

Under the banner of a 'war against terrorism' the assertion of US power was taken to a new and explosive level, which will result in 'blowback' for US society.

On the one side, US imperialism recaptured ground lost in the past. Forced ten years ago to evacuate its forces from the Philippines, it is now welcomed back to its former bases at Clark airfield and Subic Bay, under the guise of fighting ''terrorism". In the Philippines this threat comes from a handful of armed insurgents at this stage.

It has established in Central Asia a "semi-permanent" base, particularly in Uzbekistan. Today it calls the shots in post-war Afghanistan. Yet with this come added burdens.

One American senator says this means the probable presence of at least 75,000 US troops in Afghanistan for the next ten years, as well as a massive financial underwriting of the Karzai government. This won't in any way solve the underlying problems of poverty and tribal and ethnic strife, which led to the rise of the Taliban in the first place.

Those costs, however, will be dwarfed in the event of a US-led invasion of Iraq. The prospects for war grow, then diminish, then grow again, almost as much as the gyrations of Wall Street share prices, and sometimes even affecting them.

At the beginning of August, senior US Democrat, Joseph Biden, chair of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, said an invasion of Iraq was "now likely". A week later, the Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives seemed to back away, saying "he did not believe an attack on Iraq would be justified without provocation".

Growing opposition

SINCE THEN, the opponents of invasion have recruited some unusual bedfellows. Even Henry Kissinger, Cold War warrior and instigator of the butchery of the Chilean people in 1973, has come out against a "return match" with Saddam Hussein, as has "Stormin' Norman" Schwartzkopf and hard-right Republican spokesperson Brent Scowcroft.

Indeed, all of George Bush senior's advisers during the Gulf War either oppose an invasion or urge caution on his son. It is rumoured that "Poppy" Bush himself is urging caution. And the reactionary sheikhdoms in the Gulf - Bahrain and others - publicly oppose an invasion. They correctly fear mass upheavals in the Middle East resulting in their overthrow.

Obscenely, however, even during the holiday period, Bush, from the safety of a golf course, beat the war drums: "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive".

His crazed defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who looks, acts and speaks more and more like "Doctor Strangelove", has widened the 'terrorist threat' to include the previously loyal allies of US imperialism in the Middle East, the Saudi Arabian theocratic feudal regime. The Saudis reportedly retaliated by withdrawing billions of dollars of investment in the US.

Rumsfeld even seemed to justify the continued ruthless occupation of the Palestinian territories taken by Israeli forces in the 1967 war. He referred to them as "real estate" "legitimately" captured in a war; by implication Israel should hold them. This was a clear concession to the Jewish fundamentalists in the US who the Republicans hope will help to carry them to victory in November's mid-term elections.

Such bellicose statements provoked the barely disguised outrage even of the erstwhile 'allies' of US imperialism. Europe's capitalists, almost unanimously - except, perhaps, for Berlusconi in Italy and Aznar in Spain - have condemned the proposed attack on Iraq.

Schroder, facing a general election in Germany in September, has publicly dissociated himself from Bush. Even the formerly slavishly loyal Blair, through foreign secretary Straw, seeks to distance the government from the US invasion without the previous agreement of the UN and the sending of arms inspectors back into Iraq.

This is partly determined by the knowledge that an invasion could split the government from top to bottom. Both Clare Short and Robin Cook could resign, and half of the "non-payroll" New Labour MPs are in opposition. Some commentators even speculate that Blair himself could be brought down by a combination of events: his support for a Bush-led invasion, upheavals over the euro referendum and looming confrontation with the unions.

No war for oil

IT ISN'T certain, however, that the formidable and growing opposition to a US war with Iraq will sway the Bush regime away from such a confrontation. There are powerful forces clamouring for war.

Perhaps like no other US presidency before, the Bush administration is in thrall to the oil and gas oligopolies. They look hungrily towards a post-Saddam situation with Iraq sitting on the world's second largest known oil reserves, next to Saudi Arabia.

Indeed, Rumsfeld's attack on Saudi Arabia is probably connected with the Republican right's perspectives that one outcome of a war with Iraq could be less dependence on Saudi oil and its replacement by plentiful supplies from Iraq's oil fields.

They seem oblivious to the fact that an invasion of Iraq could set the Middle East alight and result in the Saudi regime's overthrow by an even more fundamentalist one.

Amongst this layer, there is almost breathtaking ignorance of the likely repercussions of invasion. Within the US and in Europe, particularly in Britain, foreign policy "experts" are lining up to warn Bush that these war preparations "border on fantasy".

The grounds for such a war are allegedly the 'potential' for Saddam to acquire weapons of mass destruction. However, as John Pilger points out, it was US imperialism itself which supplied Saddam with this very potential:

"A 1994 Senate report documented the transfer to Iraq of the ingredients for biological weapons; botulism developed by a company in Maryland, licensed by the Commerce Department and approved by the State Department. Anthrax was also supplied by the Porton Down laboratories in Britain, a government establishment." [The New Rulers of the World].

Moreover, a war could provoke the very act - the use of weapons of mass destruction - it is calculated to prevent. In the Gulf War, it seems that Saddam contemplated, but did not use, biological and chemical weapons because the US did not enter the cities to force his overthrow.

Now Bush's declared policy is "regime change" - the removal of Saddam. If this appeared likely it could prompt him to use biological or chemical weapons, for instance against Israel. Already, Israelis are stockpiling gas masks and the Sharon government has warned that a biological or chemical attack on Israel could provoke the nuking of Baghdad!

Bush's internal battles

LITTLE WONDER then that the prospects of war and its aftermath produce near panic stations amongst the more sober strategists of capital. The Financial Times complained in July: "Never in the field of human conflict has so much war planning been revealed to so many by so few."

One explanation for this, they speculate, could be that the constant stream of stories would put pressure on Saddam to make more and more concessions. More likely it reflects the ferocious internal battle within the Bush presidency. The generals, along with Colin Powell, oppose a war, while the Republican right, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld, clearly dominant in the Bush administration, bang the war drums.

The Financial Times, pointedly warning Bush to restrict his agenda to weapons inspectors going back into Iraq, also said: "Bush might also recall that during the Cuban missile crisis the US military wanted to invade Cuba, while the Kennedy administration insisted on the goal of getting the Soviet missiles out of Cuba. In the not dissimilar debate now, those roles appear to have been reversed."

A war against Saddam won't be a rerun of either the Gulf War or the invasion of Afghanistan. Initially the Kurdish parties declared that they weren't prepared to act, like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, as proxy troops of the US. Now, after a visit to the US, some are prepared to act alongside US imperialism in an invasion.

They calculate that this would enhance their prospects for an autonomous Kurdish entity in a post-Saddam federal regime. That's why Turkish prime minister Ecevit and the Turkish army, fearing repercussions from this of a resurgence of the Kurdish opposition within Turkey, have come out against the war. They threatened to move troops to the border with Iraq if war breaks out.

Reinforcing this opposition is the awareness that there is no clear vision of what a post-Saddam regime would look like. 60% of the Iraqi population are Shias; the rest are either Kurds in the north and Sunni Arabs in the centre.

It is not difficult to imagine intense conflict between them with the possibility of some kind of Shia-dominated regime emerging. On the other hand, such is Iraq's instability that a regime of "Saddamism" without Saddam (another military despot) could be the outcome of a war.

Economic impact

THE OPPOSITION within the US population has also risen dramatically. 47% now oppose an invasion of Iraq, compared to 74% in favour in November last year. Even the chief of the US Marine Corps, who will soon be NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, condemned the plan to attack Saddam as 'foolish'.

In the event of a war, there will undoubtedly be a "rallying around the flag" and initially support would probably increase. But even now opposition is growing, which is probably the main reason why Bush has latterly talked of his 'patience'.

He has an eye on upcoming mid-term elections, which at one stage appeared to guarantee, in the post-September 11 mood in the US, the Republicans' recapturing of the Senate, giving them a majority in both houses.

Now, the general instability world-wide and the effects of economic crisis within the US itself have cast doubt on such an outcome. The prospect of war has compounded this.

The growing opposition to the war, the profound unease sweeping the US and the deepening economic crisis have led to increased protests, typified by the thousands who protested against a Republican dinner attended by Bush in Portland, Oregon.

This mood will grow in the event of a war, even if an invasion of Iraq does not take place. This is because of the huge effects of the economic slowdown in the US on jobs and living standards.

The US capitalists, led by Federal Reserve president Alan Greenspan, are desperately attempting to boost the US economy to help the Bush presidency. Greenspan says that, as opposed to 1996, when there was "irrational exuberance" now the US is suffering from "irrational despondency". The only constant, it seems, in the US is capitalism's "irrationality"!

Mere words, however, are unlikely to rescue the US economy from a double-dip recession. Bush's father won a war in the Gulf but one result was a spiralling of oil prices that produced the double-dip recession of the early 1990s, which in turn led to his eviction from the White House. The same fate awaits his son on the basis of his present policies and developments in the US economy.

US imperialism is not just the mightiest military power but also the economic engine of world capitalism. The US economy is currently twice as large as its closest rival Japan. Even California's economy has now risen to become the fifth largest in the world (using market exchange rate estimates) ahead of France and just behind the UK.

In 1999 the US attracted more than one-third of the world's flow of foreign direct investment. Yet its very predominance ensures that all the contradictions, politically and economically, can recoil on the US with profound social and economic consequences in the next period.

Post-September 11, the US ruling class believed they could do virtually anything, within the US and world-wide. With its muscle it could intervene to intimidate opponents. However, the Arab-Israeli dispute showed the limits of this power, with the US incapable of imposing any lasting solution.

The issue of Iraq, whether it comes to war or not, also shows that the US ruling class cannot just act alone without taking account of opposition world-wide and even within its own borders.

One consequence of 11 September was Bush's attempt to establish the Republican right's goal - which escaped his father and even Reagan - of the so-called "national security state". This envisaged the re-establishment of the 'authority' of the presidency, the dominance of the executive over the legislature.

This was achieved for a short period following 11 September. Evoking all the worst authoritarian and even dictatorial influences of the Cold War, Bush rode roughshod over Congress, partly because of the supine position of the Democrats.

Anybody considered slightly suspicious was arrested, sometimes on bogus charges, for either being involved in or assisting 'terrorism'. 1,000 largely Arab US citizens languish in America's prisons. Recently a judge ruled that they must be named and given legal rights to prepare their defence.

In other words, the pendulum has begun to swing against Bush domestically and this will be reflected on the international stage as well.

The most disturbed period in human history has now opened up. Post-September 11 brought forth phrases such as "the war against terrorism" and "axis of evil". Cheney promised a 50-year war against these "enemies".

Unfortunately, as a commentator in Foreign Affairs pointed out: "Wars have typically been fought against proper nouns (Germany, say) for the good reason that proper nouns can surrender and promise not to do it again. Wars against common nouns (poverty, crime, drugs) have been less successful.

"Such opponents never give up. The war on terrorism, unfortunately, falls into the second category. Victory is possible only if the United States confines itself to fighting individual terrorists rather than the tactic of terrorism itself."

Mass opposition

IN OTHER words, Bush's war is already a failure. It is now almost commonplace to say that terrorism is itself a reflection of a wider and more profound unease, of unsolved social, ethnic, religious or national problems in society. It is precisely poverty, malnutrition and all the diseases resulting from rotten capitalism that have spawned terrorist organisations in the past and which are still responsible for the threat of terrorism today.

After 11 September a long period of reaction was promised by the emerging dominance of US imperialism. The Socialist warned that the relationship of forces would be altered post-September 11 to the advantage of the ruling class as opposed to the poor, the downtrodden and workers throughout the world.

However, this did not mean that the working class had suffered a profound and historical defeat. There were limits to this reaction, which is already beginning to dissipate by the emergence of forces opposed to US imperialism, particularly the working class.

The last year has shown the terrible future promised for working people on the basis of the continuation of capitalism. But it has also shown the great capacity to struggle by working people. We have seen the collapse in Argentina, followed by Uruguay and even Brazil, with a deepening of the poverty, unemployment and deprivation which scars these countries and the rest of Latin America.

On the other hand, we have seen working people come out onto the streets and protest against capitalism and what it means. In Europe, mighty general strikes, mass days of protest or mass demonstrations have taken place in Italy, Spain, Portugal and France.

If a war should take place against Iraq, it might temporarily sustain the Bush presidency - and even that isn't certain - but at the cost of undermining it and US capitalism in the medium and long term. Mighty, mass anti-war protests would sweep the world.

Even without declaring war on Iraq, mass opposition is fermenting in the ranks of the working class and the people generally. Of course, a new terrorist outrage on the scale of 11 September could cut across the process of radicalisation. But even then this will not be the same as post-11 September.

It is the rulers of the US, Europe and Japan in particular who are responsible for the conditions which lead to these outrages. They and their capitalist system will be held to account by the movement of the working people world-wide in the period we are going into.

In rejecting capitalism, the next period will see more and more working people looking towards the ideas of socialism and Marxism.

The Socialist 6 September 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe

Socialism 2002

SOCIALISM 2002 is now only eight weeks away. It is a weekend of discussion and debate, hosted by the Socialist Party, about how best we can fight back against capitalism. 

Hannah Sell

Crucially we will also be discussing the need for a socialist alternative to the nightmare of capitalism and what form such an alternative should take.

Every reader of The Socialist should make a point of attending Socialism 2002. If you haven't booked your place yet then fill in the form below today.

However, Socialism 2002 is not only for current readers of The Socialist and members of the Socialist Party.

It is the best possible event for people new to socialist ideas to attend if they want to find out more. Make a point of inviting fellow trade unionists and anti-capitalists, friends, relatives and acquaintances to come along. On Socialist Party stalls invite everyone who stops to attend.

If you need more leaflets just give the office a ring on 020 8988 8767.

If you would like to be regularly updated with details of the agenda and speakers at Socialism 2002 just email us at socialism@socialistparty.org.uk

Course 1: Building the trade unions.

• For a 24-hour public sector strike
• How to be a socialist shop steward.
• Debate: How can trade unionists find a political voice? Can Labour be moved left? Is a new workers' party needed?

Course 2: Stop Bush and Blair's war on Iraq.

• Lessons of the Vietnam war
• The history of Iraq under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
• Israel/Palestine.

Course 3: Socialism

• Would socialism achieve liberation for women?
• Could socialism prevent the destruction of the environment?

Course 4: World in turmoil

• Latin America - an attempted coup in Venezuela, four Presidents overthrown in Argentina, economic crisis - what future for Latin America?
• Africa - with 20 million starving in Southern Africa - can capitalism develop the continent?
• India and Pakistan - is nuclear conflict possible?

Course 5: The lives of great revolutionaries.

• Che Guevara
• Rosa Luxemburg
• Leon Trotsky

Course 6: Strategies to overthrow capitalism

• Marxism vs. anarchism - the debate in 2002
• Does the Russian Revolution of 1917 have lessons for socialists today?
• Debate: How relevant is Marx today?

Socialism 2002

Cost - waged £15 for weekend (£8 per day), unwaged £7.50/£4. University of London Union, Malet St, London WC1. Nearest Tube: Euston, Euston Sq. or Goodge St.

Book online

The Socialist 6 September 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe

TUC conference

Critical Time For Trade Unionists

THIS YEAR'S TUC conference meets in Blackpool at a decisive juncture for Britain's trade union movement.

Bill Mullins, Socialist Party industrial organiser

Despite all New Labour's spin, trade unionists know that the economy is threatened with a major recession. Tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs are disappearing as multinationals set up abroad in low-wage economies.

Over 400,000 jobs have gone in the last four years - the TUC has talked about 15,000 manufacturing jobs being lost every month. Right-wing union leaders like Ken Jackson have paid the price for doing nothing for their members as the job slaughter continued unabated.

A new mood of militancy has begun to grip working people as they watch the greedy bosses pay themselves more. The average chief executive gets nearly £1 million a year in salary, bonus and share options, even where the company has declared a fall in profits. The same bosses then oppose all attempts by ordinary workers to improve their own pay and conditions.

CBI director-general Digby Jones is already complaining that business fears over industrial action are at their highest for 15 years. "The boardrooms of Detroit, Tokyo, Seoul and Johannesburg will be watching [the TUC] next week and hoping for some reassurance that Britain is not going back to the bad old days," he whined to The Times.

The government seems intent on taking on the unions, particularly in the public sector, whilst their promises to raise public sector spending follow five years of funding starvation.

Education Minister Estelle Morris demands that teachers "reform their working practices" before any money is spent on education. She has said this includes the involvement of more private companies in schools.

The TUC agenda partly reflects the new situation. Resolutions from UNISON and the GMB both call for an end to the Private Finance Initiative and privatisation. UNISON calls for an investigation into the four big accountancy companies that made millions out of the privatisation process. It calls for a special public services conference before the next budget in 2003.

Both unions highlight New Labour's broken promise to end the two-tier pay system prevalent in the privatised parts of the public sector. But it was union leaders like Dave Prentis of UNISON who argued that staying with Labour would directly benefit his members.

The Sodexho health workers in Scotland have shown the only thing that the bosses understand is strike action. They forced their bosses to end this pay discrimination between former public sector workers and new employees.

On public sector pay the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) - itself preparing for all-out strike action - serves notice that the government needs to pay decent wages for the public services.

Whilst there is no resolution on the minimum wage, the TUC is reported to be producing a statement calling for it to be set at £5.30, half male median earnings. They say wage negotiators should set a target of £6 per hour minimum.

But to make this a reality the unions would have to launch a campaign, including demonstrations and industrial action. This is not mentioned in the statement.

On the campaign against racism, UNISON, in line with its conference position, calls for the TUC to organise a national demo in the Greater Manchester area to highlight opposition to the election of the BNP councillors in Burnley.

A lot of unions have put in resolutions on the issue of rights at work but the RMT is calling for the repeal of all anti-union laws. Blair has boasted of these laws and it will take an almighty campaign for this to happen. The RMT also calls for support for a rally and demonstration against the anti-union laws.

They also call for opposition to the privatisation of the London Underground and renationalisation of the railways.

Most unions will support the call for opposition to the involvement in any attack on Iraq. The rail union TSSA has tabled an amendment along those lines. (see page 2)

Socialist Party TUC conference meeting. Tuesday 10 September 6.30pm. Ruskin Hotel, Albert Road, Blackpool. Speakers: Janice Godrich, president of the PCS (personal capacity) and Bill Mullins, Socialist Party industrial organiser.

The Socialist 6 September 2002 | Top | Home | News | The Socialist 

Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Subscribe